GeniesLoki

People seem to really struggle to reason about the fact that the same person can be both privileged and oppressed without these things in any way cancelling out. If they're ingroup, people ignore that they're privileged, if they're outgroup people ignore that they're oppressed.

I think this is partly because people (across the board, this isn't just a social justice thing) take adversity as granting moral authority. Admitting your privilege feels like giving up moral authority. Admitting someone's oppression feels like granting them moral authority.

I think adversity has been widely considered a sign of moral authority, what varies historically and geographically is whether you need to overcome the adversity in order to gain that authority.

e.g. "I worked hard to get where I am!" will always be treated as a greater sign of authority than having been gifted your position.

perhaps in a group in whch it is mostly agreed upon “I worked hard to get where I am” is impossible, the adversity itself becomes the virtue.